• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

Slippery Slope said:
Oh look you exposed yourself as another mindless ditto-head by using the phrase "democrat party". Allow me to educate you, it's the democratic party. Just like it would be incorrect for me to call your party the "republic party". :2wave:
Click to expand...
Actually I used that term well before Rush started to. Nice try though.

You are a Democrat, therefore a member of the Democrat Party.

I am a Republican; a member of the Republican Party.
 
Goobieman said:
:funny
Neo-cons are liberals with pro-American foreign policy goals.
Click to expand...
We shall use the accepted terminology because indiana grampas can't grasp neo-liberalism. They only understand liberal as leftwing and conservative as rightwing. In that case neocon is the new conservative who believes in American military might as a tool for global economic domination and regression of society and science.
 
Slippery Slope said:
If there wasn't a history of racism and bigotry against blacks then your point would be valid. It is a social milestone as well as an indication of his abilities and intelligence.
Click to expand...

it is a social milestone certainly but does not indicate his abilities or intelligence to be superior to any other president's that I can see.
 
JMak said:
Are people still abusing the term, "Neoconservative?"

I just don't get why people have to abuse the English language to criticize Bush. It's not like there's not many, many issues thast Bush can be legitimately criticized about. But why the compulsion to abuse language to do it?

BDS??
Click to expand...
Because the sheeple are so ignorant, we must modify certain terms so as to not further confuse the ignorant masses.. Thanks corporatocracy.
 
Slippery Slope said:
We shall use the accepted terminology because indiana grampas can't grasp neo-liberalism. They only understand liberal as leftwing and conservative as rightwing. In that case neocon is the new conservative who believes in American military might as a tool for global economic domination and regression of society and science.
Click to expand...

Is that you, Mondale, because, there you go, again.

Sincerely,
Ronnie.
 
Okay, I was watching Jon Stewart last nite, and Joe the War Correspondent actually said, "Hey guys, you want a story? Come here." When the press all approached him he told them, "I'm not the story."

This guy is the real life asshat of the year.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
Okay, I was watching Jon Stewart last nite, and Joe the War Correspondent actually said, "Hey guys, you want a story? Come here." When the press all approaced him he told them, "I'm not the story."

This guy is the real life asshat of the year.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but.....you see, what the problem with that is.......... **** ....... good call, I can't argue that.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Okay, I was watching Jon Stewart last nite, and Joe the War Correspondent actually said, "Hey guys, you want a story? Come here." When the press all approaced him he told them, "I'm not the story."

This guy is the real life asshat of the year.
Click to expand...





:lol: messing with the press.... I actually find that funny..... :lol:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Okay, I was watching Jon Stewart last nite, and Joe the War Correspondent actually said, "Hey guys, you want a story? Come here." When the press all approached him he told them, "I'm not the story."

This guy is the real life asshat of the year.
Click to expand...

Not sure what's wrong with this...?
 
Southern Man said:
He is with the People's pocketbook.
Click to expand...

He's pretty liberal in regards to many other issues as well. "Social conservativism", when applied federally, is really just liberalism from the other side of the fence.

For example, a constitutional ban on gay marriage is liberal as it sees moral issues as being something that should be dictated to the states instead of being dictated by the states.

The myth that being socially conservative is somehow also politically conservative is exactly how the neo-cons got ahold of the party.

One can be a social conservative as well as being politically conservative, just as one can be socially liberal while still remaining politically conservative.

The two things are not connected.

I get called a liberal, even though I'm anti-federalist, which is very politically conservative, simply because I have no issue with my state allowing abortion or allowing gay marriage and such.

I'll argue philosophically on the reasons in favor of these issues, but I would never argue for a national standard regarding these issues because of the 9th and 10th amendments.

For example, I'm against Roe v Wade, but not because I disagree with abortion (i.e. NOT because I disagree with the right it grants), but instead because I disagree with the rights it REMOVES (i.e. the rights of the states to decide the issue). Even though I personally am in favor of abortion rights in my state, I do not think the methodology of grranting those rights in my state are appropriate. It should be solely within the realm of the state to decide.

This view puts me firmly on the side of conservativism, not liberalism. Although the lines have been blurred to the point where I get labelled incorrectly more often than not.

Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
He's pretty liberal in regards to many other issues as well. "Social conservativism", when applied federally, is really just liberalism from the other side of the fence.

For example, a constitutional ban on gay marriage is liberal as it sees moral issues as being something that should be dictated to the states instead of being dictated by the states.

The myth that being socially conservative is somehow also politically conservative is exactly how the neo-cons got ahold of the party.

One can be a social conservative as well as being politically conservative, just as one can be socially liberal while still remaining politically conservative.

The two things are not connected.

I get called a liberal, even though I'm anti-federalist, which is very politically conservative, simply because I have no issue with my state allowing abortion or allowing gay marriage and such.

I'll argue philosophically on the reasons in favor of these issues, but I would never argue for a national standard regarding these issues because of the 9th and 10th amendments.

For example, I'm against Roe v Wade, but not because I disagree with abortion (i.e. NOT because I disagree with the right it grants), but instead because I disagree with the rights it REMOVES (i.e. the rights of the states to decide the issue). Even though I personally am in favor of abortion rights in my state, I do not think the methodology of grranting those rights in my state are appropriate. It should be solely within the realm of the state to decide.

This view puts me firmly on the side of conservativism, not liberalism. Although the lines have been blurred to the point where I get labelled incorrectly more often than not.

Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Why do you side with the states? Is it The Constitution, or something else?
 
Tucker Case said:
Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
Click to expand...
Anyone that sees Bush as anythng but moderate-left can't see more than 1/2 the political specturm.

On the ideologcal clock, he's an 11:30.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I'm curious. Why do you side with the states? Is it The Constitution, or something else?
Click to expand...

It's a combination of three factors:

1. The Constitution

2. My firm belief that no morality is universally correct.

3. My belief that the government was set up in such a way that the highest level of authority over the people should be local authority, where they have a more immediate ability to exact change if they feel the laws are unjust. Then the heirarchal power decreases as the proximity decreases. this is evidenced by teh fact that at best, a person in Illinois can only directly vote for 3 out of 535 people in the federal government.

Whereas, they have far more representatives that tehy can vote for at the various local leves of city, county and state. IMO, this means that the people have a clear advantage of making their voices heard legitimately at teh local and state levels. Whereas they are but a drop in a vast ocean at the federal level.

If someone wants to live in a dry county, for example, they should have the right to do so. If someone wants to live in a county that has a ban on abortion because they feel it is morally deplorable, they should also have that right. Just because I disagree on teh morality of the issue does not make me "right" about that. It is just what is right for me.





I think that evolution is the driving force behind morality, an that this morality relates to kinship. As a species, we are designed to be in smaller more compatible groups to increase the liklihood of passing on similar genetic material. Those wh are abhorent in views and such may not be compatible with teh gorup and they might cause internal strife within said group, thus decreasing the chances of the overall group of passing on genetic material.

I think this means that there is no true universal morality that can be applied equally throughout any larger group, since smaller groups are the only one's that can avoid serious strife.

While I believe that my moral worldview is correct, I only see it as such for me and my local "group". I do not think I have the right to remove choices form those who disagree except if they choose to remian in the group to which I belong.

I don't disagree with enforcing your morality on others, I disagree with enforcing your morality on otehrs while removing their ability to choose otherwise.

I consider the ability to move elsewhere, or lobby for a change in local government as a legitimate choice which people can partake of.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's a combination of three factors:

1. The Constitution

2. My firm belief that no morality is universally correct.

3. My belief that the government was set up in such a way that the highest level of authority over the people should be local authority, where they have a more immediate ability to exact change if they feel the laws are unjust. Then the heirarchal power decreases as the proximity decreases. this is evidenced by teh fact that at best, a person in Illinois can only directly vote for 3 out of 535 people in the federal government.

Whereas, they have far more representatives that tehy can vote for at the various local leves of city, county and state. IMO, this means that the people have a clear advantage of making their voices heard legitimately at teh local and state levels. Whereas they are but a drop in a vast ocean at the federal level.

If someone wants to live in a dry county, for example, they should have the right to do so. If someone wants to live in a county that has a ban on abortion because they feel it is morally deplorable, they should also have that right. Just because I disagree on teh morality of the issue does not make me "right" about that. It is just what is right for me.





I think that evolution is the driving force behind morality, an that this morality relates to kinship. As a species, we are designed to be in smaller more compatible groups to increase the liklihood of passing on similar genetic material. Those wh are abhorent in views and such may not be compatible with teh gorup and they might cause internal strife within said group, thus decreasing the chances of the overall group of passing on genetic material.

I think this means that there is no true universal morality that can be applied equally throughout any larger group, since smaller groups are the only one's that can avoid serious strife.

While I believe that my moral worldview is correct, I only see it as such for me and my local "group". I do not think I have the right to remove choices form those who disagree except if they choose to remian in the group to which I belong.

I don't disagree with enforcing your morality on others, I disagree with enforcing your morality on otehrs while removing their ability to choose otherwise.

I consider the ability to move elsewhere, or lobby for a change in local government as a legitimate choice which people can partake of.
Click to expand...

You make very valid points about an individual's ability to effect change better at a local level.

I disagree with legislating morality at any level though. I don't subscribe to the "love it or leave it" thinking about local areas and their attempts to legislate their morality. Live and let live. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Let a person have their liberty to choose for themselves. People can't have morality thrust upon them. It's only moral when they decide for themselves.

This is why there is a balance to be had between local and federal authority. Civil and human rights shouldn't be a national standard. I'm sure there are local municipalities that would oppress various people. Let's say they outlawed dancing. Dancing doesn't harm anyone directly, yet they would be making that decision for them. I don't believe in micromanaging people's lives.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I disagree with legislating morality at any level though. I don't subscribe to the "love it or leave it" thinking about local areas and their attempts to legislate their morality. Live and let live. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Let a person have their liberty to choose for themselves. People can't have morality thrust upon them. It's only moral when they decide for themselves.
Click to expand...
So... you oppose the welfare state?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I disagree with legislating morality at any level though. I don't subscribe to the "love it or leave it" thinking about local areas and their attempts to legislate their morality. Live and let live. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Let a person have their liberty to choose for themselves. People can't have morality thrust upon them. It's only moral when they decide for themselves.
Click to expand...


Personally, I agree as well, and I would lobby my local government to take such a stance, but I don't feel that my views should hold any sway in, let's say, Texas. Thus, I do not think that I have a right to enforce my view on morality there.

Like you said, it is only moral when people decide for themselves. I cannot enforce my views upon them, because that would be removing their ability to choose for themselves.



Edit: If a law specifically targets someone for arbitrary reasons, such as race or gender, and disallows them to partake in rights enjoyed by others of the different gender or race form them, they are not to be allowed. I think if the rights are banned form all people of either gender or race, it is OK.

For example, If a law prevents black people form dancing, while allowing white people to dance, that is not to be allowed, since it removes choice for arbitrary reasons. But if a law is passed that bans dancing from all people of all genders or races, then it is OK.

But that doesn't mean I would ever support a ban on dancing in my local municipality. I would oppose such an ordinace even though I personally hate dancing.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
So... you oppose the welfare state?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not an anarchist. That would be complete freedom for all and the only law would be the law of the jungle.

Welfare is screwed up, no doubt. But I think to an extent it's necessary. It benefits our nation when we take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Otherwise their only recourse is infringing on other's property rights or they die.

I do oppose welfare for those who can help themselves.
 
Goobieman said:
So... you oppose the welfare state?
Click to expand...

I think welfare should be a state issue, not a federal one. If a state wants to have welfare, they would need to fund it form their own taxes. Of course, this would probably mean that most rich people who would receive the brunt of the taxes would move, but so be it. That would be the result of it.

Personally, I would support unemployment and a rudimmentary form of welfare that would not be abused and be willing to pay extra taxes to have this privelidge within my state, but only if it were abolished as the national standard.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
No, I'm not an anarchist. That would be complete freedom for all and the only law would be the law of the jungle.
Click to expand...
Not at all sure how you make that connection.

The welfare state is people being forced to provide charity to others because, boiled down, 'its the right thing to do' -- that is, it is forcing morality onto others.

So, if you disagree with legislating morality at any level and if you believe that people can't have morality thrust upon them, then you must oppose the welfare state.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom